Several civil rights groups have signed a letter prepared by The
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and FairVote-The Center for Voting
and Democracy. The letter discusses the importance of flexibility
in voting equipment. Following the letter is a more detailed
description of voting equipment flexibility. This statement was initially released in June of 2001.

To whom it may concern:

The controversial presidential elections in Florida in 2000
demonstrated that many American counties use antiquated voting
equipment. There is a consensus among election administrators, elected
officials, civic leaders and the public at-large that many
jurisdictions should modernize their equipment to ensure that voter
intentions are accurately recorded and counted.

As a whole, we believe that much more needs to be done to improve our
electoral process than purchasing new voting equipment and software. At
the same time, we believe that such new equipment, when made equally
available in all precincts, is an essential building block to a fair
and just representative democracy. But it is critically important new
voting mechanics expand democracy rather than put any unnecessary
limitations upon it. For that reason, we support federal and state
requirements that all new voting equipment and software have the
following features:

Have a
precinct-based, error-correcting capacity to ensure that voters have
the opportunity to correct or avoid any errors, such as over-votes and
under-votes

Be flexible enough
to handle ballot types necessary for all election systems currently
used in the United States, including cumulative voting and ranked
choice ballots

Provide full accessibility to people with disabilities

Ensure ballots can
be read and understood with minimal assistance by people whose level of
literacy is low and by people whose primary language is other than
English.

Sincerely,

Asian American Legal Defense and Education FundBrennan Center for JusticeCenter for Voting and DemocracyCommittee for the Study of the American ElectorateDemos: A Network for Ideas & ActionLawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under LawNational Asian Pacific American Legal ConsortiumPuerto Rican Legal Defense and Education FundU.S. Public Interest Research Group

Voting Equipment and the Benefits of FlexibilityThe Center for Voting and Democracy

There are several important criteria that counties and states should
satisfy in purchasing new equipment and software. One particularly
important criterion is flexibility. The principle of flexibility in
voting equipment includes several components:

A. Precinct-Based, Error-Correcting Capacity: Research in the
wake of the 2000 elections demonstrates that perhaps the most
straightforward way to reduce invalid votes is to ensure that voters
have the opportunity to correct any over-votes and under-votes or avoid
them altogether. The capacity for precinct-based error correction can
be built into all current voting technologies.

B. Capacity to Handle All Ballot Types: There are currently four ballot types used individually and in combination in public elections in the U.S. They are:

1. Voters vote for one candidate only in a given level of election 2. Voters vote for more than one candidate in a given election 3. Voters can allocate more than one vote to a single candidate (cumulative voting) 4. Voters can rank
candidates in order of choice (choice voting and instant runoff voting)

Jurisdictions acquiring new voting equipment can generally ensure
compatibility with all ballots types at no additional cost. Voting
technologies include: 1) electronic Direct Recording Equipment (DRE),
often referred to as ATM- or touch-screen style equipment, 2)
optical scanning equipment; and 3) modern punch card equipment. Some
equipment provides ballot type flexibility more easily than others,
with DRE's likely have the potential for the easiest designs. Most
equipment and technologies, such as lever and push-button machines, are
generally incompatible with all ballot types. Some relatively modern
equipment is incompatible without software adjustments. The counties of
Santa Clara (CA), Alameda (CA) and Travis (TX) are among those that
have included in their request for proposals requirements that their
new DRE's be able to handle ranked-ballots, and all major DRE vendors
now have ranked ballots as a standard available feature. Three major
companies which produce optical scan equipment, ES&S, Global and
Sequoia, can handle ranked-choice ballots with their latest precinct
scanners.

C. Accessibility for People with Disabilities: The federal
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA or "Motor Voter") guarantee access to polling
sites and voting equipment for people with disabilities of sight and
mobility. However, interpretation of this law has not satisfied
advocates of people with disabilities, as it has allowed jurisdictions
to purchase new equipment that does not provide the levels of
accessibility these advocates seek. There is a developing consensus
among election administration reformers that greater accessibility is
of fundamental concern, which raises particular questions about voting
equipment -- like optical scan technology -- that makes it impossible
or difficult for those who are visually impaired to cast a secret
ballot.

D. Recognition of Differences in Language and Literacy Level: The
federal Voting Rights Act requires that under certain conditions
election materials must be provided in languages other than English.
Voting equipment and materials also should be useable by voters who
have low levels of literacy. All modern voting equipment can be
designed for multiple languages, although some can do so with less
strain on election administrators than others. For example, electronic
DRE's can allow voters to indicate their language of choice without
requiring election administrators to print and distribute ballots in
those languages. Particular voting equipment and ballot designs vary
greatly in terms of their ease of use by people with low levels of
literacy. Although machines currently used in many places are not
accessible to people who do not read English, experience from around
the world shows that it is possible to design fully accessible
materials for any voting equipment or technology. The key is to use
simple, clear language along with pictures, symbols and/or numbers.

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.